Well, I mean, the thought's crossed my mind. But nobody actually seems to be talking about it seriously. Given Trump's stated feelings about losers, I don't think he wants to appoint anybody who just lost a race by double digits. (Unless they lost it to him, in the primary.)

Plus Arpaio's wife is purportedly in pretty poor health these days. The guy's a monster but even monsters usually care about their families; I don't know that he'd move out-of-state if the offer came.

Wow, people are super mad about this. It's, like, a totally normal (even pedestrian) use of the pardon power.

I think I'd probably disagree with a lot of you on Manning's conviction generally; I think she's a legit hero and I wish I had half her guts but I also accept that as far as things that will get you thrown in military prison if you are enlisted go her conviction (though not her post-conviction treatment, ofc) is kind of a no-brainer. But this was completely the right decision and I'm saddened by the people contorting themselves to level a criticism of it that reads as reasonable.

pacobird wrote:Wow, people are super mad about this. It's, like, a totally normal (even pedestrian) use of the pardon power.

I think I'd probably disagree with a lot of you on Manning's conviction generally; I think she's a legit hero and I wish I had half her guts but I also accept that as far as things that will get you thrown in military prison if you are enlisted go her conviction (though not her post-conviction treatment, ofc) is kind of a no-brainer. But this was completely the right decision and I'm saddened by the people contorting themselves to level a criticism of it that reads as reasonable.

Heard from a relative about how "Obama hates America." Asked what they were talking about, and they proceeded to use the pardon of Manning as their support.

Gorsuch specifically took no part (it's in the text) though yeah I think he just wasn't confirmed in time.

Anyway, it could mean a variety of things, ranging from good to extremely good. On the merely "good" end, it's just affirming the lower court, saying that race cannot be a primary factor in redistricting without triggering strict scrutiny. The "extremely good" (or at least really disrupting) take is the interpretation that redistricting based on party politics cannot use race as a factor at all without triggering strict scrutiny. Given than African Americans are a 90/10 split in favor of Democrats, no party-based redistricting is going to happen in any state African American people live in any significant number without considering race, meaning this decision effectively kills gerrymandering.

but the other district was 5-3 (with Thomas, surprisingly, acting as swing justice).

It's not really that surprising at all. Thomas favors government colorblindness, but for substantially different reasons than the white conservatives: he (correctly) sees racism as still present and ingrained in all levels in American society, and so any top-down attempts to "help" are probably only going to make shit worse. I really encourage everybody to read his dissent in Grutter v. Bollinger. This opinion's consistent with that.

Feel like I've banged this drum before but Thomas is twice the jurist most of the other conservatives have been. That he's taken a backseat to Scalia in the popular consciousness is equal parts susceptibility to hucksters and out-and-out racism.